ARTICLES in the Okehampton Times (August 21) illustrated the idiosyncrasies and failings of the planning system.
Some window frames in Bratton Clovelly offended the eyes of the rules and the planners ? but the frames were then deemed acceptable.
In Lewdown and Lydford, local people?s views on a proposed housing development were rejected by the rules and the planners, (which again puts the question, ?Is there such a thing as ?local? government??) Among the contentious issues were appropriateness of the designs and appropriateness and high density of the proposed dwellings.
The locals will have to live day-by-day alongside the results of the ?planning?; the people in Westminster who make the rules will not.
It would be appropriate for the site area of all MPs and top civil servants? dwellings to be reduced ? to densities of at least 32 dwellings per hectare. The adjacent land almost inevitably released should then be built on at a density of 50 dwellings per hectare. The inevitable large buildings towering just beyond the new boundary fences will not offend the planners? eyes, provided that appropriate window frames are installed.
When these planning rules-makers applaud the results and commit themselves to dwelling the remainder of their lives in these new (probably to them) circumstances, then is the time to start applying these rules elsewhere.
This comment on dwelling densities is not to say that there should be over-extravagant use of land for building, but consideration should be given to local opinion and local circumstances.
As for the MPs, when it comes to their own present dwellings, density is probably not measured in dwellings per hectare but hectares per dwelling!
Name and address supplied